Constitutional Court upholds amparo denial over rejected lapse-of-instance motion in shareholder exclusion suit
Sep 11 2024
Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court confirmed the amparo denial issued by the Supreme Court, Amparo and Preliminary Hearing Chamber, definitively closing Reproductores Avícolas, S.A.'s attempt to obtain caducidad (expiration of the trial stage) in the summary opposition lawsuit filed by Lisa, S.A. to challenge its exclusion as shareholder (Expediente 01043-2011-00112). The Court determined that the challenged authority acted correctly in confirming that procedural inactivity was attributable to the court's failure to serve pending notifications, a circumstance not attributable to either party. Reproductores' attempt to terminate Lisa's opposition lawsuit through caducidad constitutes a procedural mechanism aimed at preventing Lisa from exercising its right to challenge the shareholder exclusion.
Lisa, S.A. filed a summary opposition lawsuit against Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. before the Ninth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala City (Expediente 01043-2011-00112). The court admitted the complaint on December 4, 2012, served process on the defendant, and decreed as a precautionary measure the provisional cessation of the effects of the shareholder exclusion resolution adopted by the annual ordinary general shareholders' assembly on April 4, 2011. During the evidentiary phase, the court rejected scientific evidence proposed by Reproductores in a ruling of October 21, 2016, the last recorded action before the caducidad request.
On June 6, 2017, Reproductores filed a caducidad incident alleging more than six months of inactivity. The court rejected the request on June 7, 2017, finding that notifications to the parties remained pending. Reproductores appealed, and the Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals confirmed the ruling on March 9, 2022, determining that the delay was attributable to the court's notifier, not to the parties. The appellate court identified eight unserved rulings issued between September 30 and October 21, 2016, which were not served until July 17, 2017, and referred the matter to the Judicial Discipline Board for the approximately five-year delay in transmitting the case file.
Reproductores then filed an amparo before the Supreme Court, Amparo and Preliminary Hearing Chamber, which denied the action as manifestly inadmissible in its ruling of June 6, 2023, and imposed a fine of Q.1,000.00 on sponsoring attorney Javier Antonio Mendizábal Rojas.
Reproductores Avícolas appealed the first-instance amparo denial raising three principal grievances. First, that the finding requiring party inactivity for caducidad was incorrect, since the request was rejected without being admitted for processing, which prevented the petitioner from legally proving procedural inactivity. Second, that the denial constituted an ex officio defense benefiting Lisa by attributing inactivity to judicial auxiliaries. Third, that Lisa did not appear until June 28, 2017, eight months and seven days after the last procedural action, evidencing its lack of interest in advancing the case.
At the hearing, the petitioner expanded its arguments, contending that admitting the incident would have allowed examination of the procedural inactivity and Lisa's disinterest, and that the summary rejection did not comply with Article 66(c) of the Judiciary Act, as the request was neither manifestly frivolous nor inadmissible.
The Constitutional Court conducted an independent examination of the challenged act and determined that the Second Court of Appeals issued a correctly reasoned and substantiated decision. The Court established that the first-instance judge correctly found that no circumstances existed to warrant processing the caducidad incident, since the interruption of proceedings was caused by the judicial organ's failure to serve notifications.
The Court applied Article 66(c) of the Judiciary Act, concluding that the incident was inadmissible because the case file's inactivity resulted from the failure to serve notifications, a procedural act inherent to the judicial organ. The Court characterized Reproductores' objections as an attempt to obtain a review of the merits, replicating arguments already raised before the ordinary courts, which was untenable given the absence of any constitutional violation.
The Public Ministry, through the Office of Constitutional Affairs, supported this conclusion, noting that the challenged authority acted within its powers and justifiably determined that the delay was attributable to the judicial organ.
Reproductores' effort to terminate the opposition lawsuit through caducidad fits within the broader pattern of procedural conduct aimed at preventing Lisa from challenging its exclusion as shareholder. The exclusion resolution of April 4, 2011 was precisely the act that prompted the summary opposition lawsuit, and Reproductores' attempt to extinguish that proceeding through caducidad seeks to consolidate an exclusion that Lisa has the right to challenge in court.